No way, no how, could the replacement 7D be a mirrorless camera. That would kill it for 95% of the users.

Like it or not, mirrorless is the future. For one BIG reason, cost. An EVF cost less money for the camera companies to produce. Less cost = more profit, simple as that. BTW, this is also the reason why menues are replacing analog controls.

I agree with both of you. I own a 7D and would be VERY disappointed if the 7D replacement was mirrorless. Probably not the most technical of reasons :-) but I like being able to see the view without bifocals, which I can't do with a mirrorless.Unfortunately, I think the mirror is a holdover from film and probably is destined to disappear.

I don't see how it could be mirrorless since it is supposed to be wildlife/sports action tracking sort of body (not that the AF was anything close to 1 series or 5D3 (and sometimes even tracked worse than 5D2 for a few things at times- although it did VERY well for some stuff, like surfing) that said....).

But here's a question - If you have the big MP full frame, why would you need a 7D replacement?

For those who must have 8-10fps instead of 6fps and need more reach and less cost than the 1DX. 6fps on the big one would be good enough for many, but it won't be for all and the 7D2 should be less expensive too, which always does matter.

If Canon really can come up with a pixel design and readout electronics that dramatically reduces read noise, won't that leave the new 5DIII owners out in the cold? Could the 5DIII get a big price drop and a replacement (sensor only) be released soon? Could Canon offer a sensor-only upgrade for them?

I would not worry about that.

Haven't you heard? Most people who bought the 5D III claim that "they don't need more DR", and that "more DR is only for people who can't expose correctly."

I don't really need more DR either (well, it's very rare that I do), but I would like cleaner images in the DR I currently have. Going all the way to the noise floor doesn't yield the cleanest images, while pushing the noise floor down would achieve much cleaner images in the area from the current noise floor up.

But that kinda means that you do want more DR. Getting cleaner results when pushing shadows = more DR. And I'm guessing you want Canon to get rid of their trademarked banding too.

Nothing odd about that. It has been on my wishlist for 5 years now.

Yes, to get those cleaner images, I'd get more low-ISO DR for free. But there's really only one time I've wanted more base-ISO DR and in that particular case, I needed about 20 more stops, not a measly 2 stops more.

But this means you actually DO want more DR since the limit of where you start not liking the noise is too high for you. I don't get your point at all.

It's just a difference in terms, not in technology. I'm fine with 8-9 stops of total DR, but I'd like those stops to be cleaner. To make them cleaner, a camera would automatically provide more stops of total DR. I might only use the upper 8-9, but those would be cleaner than they are now, and those other ones would be available if needed.

Low-ISO DR just isn't that big of a problem for me. High ISO DR is always a problem. That said, I certainly wouldn't complain about getting more low-ISO DR since that would make for overall cleaner images, and I'm always for that.

If Canon really can come up with a pixel design and readout electronics that dramatically reduces read noise, won't that leave the new 5DIII owners out in the cold? Could the 5DIII get a big price drop and a replacement (sensor only) be released soon? Could Canon offer a sensor-only upgrade for them?

I would not worry about that.

Haven't you heard? Most people who bought the 5D III claim that "they don't need more DR", and that "more DR is only for people who can't expose correctly."

I don't really need more DR either (well, it's very rare that I do), but I would like cleaner images in the DR I currently have. Going all the way to the noise floor doesn't yield the cleanest images, while pushing the noise floor down would achieve much cleaner images in the area from the current noise floor up.

But that kinda means that you do want more DR. Getting cleaner results when pushing shadows = more DR. And I'm guessing you want Canon to get rid of their trademarked banding too.

Nothing odd about that. It has been on my wishlist for 5 years now.

Yes, to get those cleaner images, I'd get more low-ISO DR for free. But there's really only one time I've wanted more base-ISO DR and in that particular case, I needed about 20 more stops, not a measly 2 stops more.

But this means you actually DO want more DR since the limit of where you start not liking the noise is too high for you. I don't get your point at all.

It's just a difference in terms, not in technology. I'm fine with 8-9 stops of total DR, but I'd like those stops to be cleaner. To make them cleaner, a camera would automatically provide more stops of total DR. I might only use the upper 8-9, but those would be cleaner than they are now, and those other ones would be available if needed.

Low-ISO DR just isn't that big of a problem for me. High ISO DR is always a problem. That said, I certainly wouldn't complain about getting more low-ISO DR since that would make for overall cleaner images, and I'm always for that.

You won't get much more High ISO DR. That is ultimately limited by physics, and unless someone can find a way to break the laws of physics, High ISO noise and DR are what they are. The best thing to do for high ISO is to improve quantum efficiency, which can improve S/N. If one improves Q.E. but keeps the same pixel pitch, then S/N should increase, resulting in a higher ISO 100 gain, which means gain at all other ISO settings increases as well. The more electrons per digital unit, or e-/DU, the better your IQ should be at high ISO. We are approaching the limits of what is possible with a bayer-type sensor. I think 60% or so Q.E. might be the limit (the color filters themselves eliminate a LOT of light). I don't know enough about layered sensor designs (i.e. Foveon) to know how far they might go...there may be greater Q.E. limits for those even. The only way to get really high Q.E. would be to go monochrome...monochrome scientific-grade CCD's can achieve well into the 90% range for Q.E., and as such have extremely low levels of noise. When supercooled, they achieve nearly perfect DR for the given bit depth as well.

But here's a question - If you have the big MP full frame, why would you need a 7D replacement?

For those who must have 8-10fps instead of 6fps and need more reach and less cost than the 1DX. 6fps on the big one would be good enough for many, but it won't be for all and the 7D2 should be less expensive too, which always does matter.

Yes, you're right about the cost - even if they did have a new system to move the raw data faster to get the same frame rate it would probably be more expensive, and I agree cost does matter. Like I said in a previous post on this thread, though, if we assume the same pixel density (i.e., pixels / mm2) for both the APS-C and the FF, they'd have the same "reach", right?

Yes, I know, and since it's much more severely limited than low-ISO DR, that's a bummer. However, that's why I buy fast primes and IS lenses - to get more high-ISO DR by using a lower ISO (capturing more light)!

But here's a question - If you have the big MP full frame, why would you need a 7D replacement?

For those who must have 8-10fps instead of 6fps and need more reach and less cost than the 1DX. 6fps on the big one would be good enough for many, but it won't be for all and the 7D2 should be less expensive too, which always does matter.

Yes, you're right about the cost - even if they did have a new system to move the raw data faster to get the same frame rate it would probably be more expensive, and I agree cost does matter. Like I said in a previous post on this thread, though, if we assume the same pixel density (i.e., pixels / mm2) for both the APS-C and the FF, they'd have the same "reach", right?

Right.

Canon can move 120mp APS-H at 9.5fps...so I would say they DO have a new system to move raw data faster. That indicates some kind of on-die parallel (maybe column-parallel) ADC. If they have that, then they could probably implement a similar kind of digital noise reduction system like Sony Exmor, too.

If Canon really can come up with a pixel design and readout electronics that dramatically reduces read noise, won't that leave the new 5DIII owners out in the cold? Could the 5DIII get a big price drop and a replacement (sensor only) be released soon? Could Canon offer a sensor-only upgrade for them?

I would not worry about that.

Haven't you heard? Most people who bought the 5D III claim that "they don't need more DR", and that "more DR is only for people who can't expose correctly."

I think most 5D MkIII owners would prefer an accurate quote and not a misquote. I don't recall anyone saying that increased DR is only for those who can't expose properly, nor do most not want more DR. Don't confuse comments about deliberate underexposure by several stops not being a reflection of reality (which is what was being posted) with accusing people of not being able to expose properly. Likewise, don't confuse assertations that increased DR is a low priority with not wanting more DR. As has been said ad verbatim, each person makes a choice based on the features that are most relevant to them, as no camera is perfect. Some prefer to have more DR, others prefer to have more accurate AF or faster response/frame rate, others prefer something else.

Landscape photographers in particular, who have a tendency to print huge, can always use more megapixels. Sadly, Landscape photographers also consume dynamic range like it was candy, so if Canon's 46.1mp camera doesn't have competitive DR, the better options for landscape photographers would still be the D800. I seriously hope Canon resolves their DR issues with the new 46mp sensor.

Not all landscape photographers have a tendency to print large. Most will not have the customer base to sell such large prints and certainly won't have the ability to print that large without outsourcing at significant additional cost. Also, DR isn't necessarily important for landscape photographers, it may be useful, but most professional or advanced landscape photographers would be using grad filters, which would make higher DR less important to them. Also, increased DR could also reduce the impact of images, as the most important feature of memorable landscape photographs is a full tonal range, including shadows, not to mention composition. There are a number of successful landscape photographers who have used relatively low end cameras and there are even more who have come from a film background who either don't know or don't care about the technology and just use the equipment that gets the job done.It is the photographer who is the most important part of photography and I hope always will be. Yes, equipment may limit the photographer, but in reality it is rare that it is more limiting than ability, creativity and imagination, especially for subjects that don't really move. It is far more likely that a sports or wildlife photographer will be limited by their equipment than a landscape or traditional portrait photographer (i.e. the typical studio portrait), otherwise the only limits are themselves.

Landscape photographers in particular, who have a tendency to print huge, can always use more megapixels. Sadly, Landscape photographers also consume dynamic range like it was candy, so if Canon's 46.1mp camera doesn't have competitive DR, the better options for landscape photographers would still be the D800. I seriously hope Canon resolves their DR issues with the new 46mp sensor.

Not all landscape photographers have a tendency to print large.

LOL. Ah, good laugh man. It's just a "tendency". Tendency does not imply all landscape photographers everywhere do, just that there is a higher likelyhood of landscape photographers, at least those who are in business and selling their prints, to print larger.

Most will not have the customer base to sell such large prints and certainly won't have the ability to print that large without outsourcing at significant additional cost. Also, DR isn't necessarily important for landscape photographers, it may be useful, but most professional or advanced landscape photographers would be using grad filters, which would make higher DR less important to them. Also, increased DR could also reduce the impact of images, as the most important feature of memorable landscape photographs is a full tonal range, including shadows, not to mention composition. There are a number of successful landscape photographers who have used relatively low end cameras and there are even more who have come from a film background who either don't know or don't care about the technology and just use the equipment that gets the job done.It is the photographer who is the most important part of photography and I hope always will be. Yes, equipment may limit the photographer, but in reality it is rare that it is more limiting than ability, creativity and imagination, especially for subjects that don't really move. It is far more likely that a sports or wildlife photographer will be limited by their equipment than a landscape or traditional portrait photographer (i.e. the typical studio portrait), otherwise the only limits are themselves.

You are misunderstanding the value of improved dynamic range for a landscape photographer. I own the Lee Filters filter system myself, and own quite a number of lee GND filters, ND filters, etc. The use of a graduated neutral density filter is COMPENSATION for NOT having more dynamic range in our cameras. In some scenes, you just plain and simply MUST, because the scene itself might contain 20 stops or so of dynamic range. But in a lot of situations, if you could actually use all 14 stops of DR modern DSLRs have, you would need to haul out the GND's less frequently, or use less dense ones. I like the power of having GND filters in my kit, but they are not the ideal solution like having more DR is...they have issues...such as darkening the tips of mountaintops, the tops of tall trees, etc....sometimes darkening them so much they come out nearly solid black. I've never liked that about GND filters.

I'd also point out that "having" more dynamic range does not mean your final image "uses" all that dynamic range. The entire point is to be able to push around your exposure in post. Dynamic range improves your active real-world photographic editing capabilities in post. No screen currently on the market, even the top of the line $8000 TV's with adaptive dithering algorithms that can "display" 12 bits of color depth on a 10-bit display, can show the kind of dynamic range we are technically capable of capturing today (with a camera like the D800 anyway). Displaying it all at once isn't the point. You still want to compress it into the smaller 8 stops of the average computer screen, or the 5-7 stops of the average print, and you want it to have that "pop" and saturation that a good landscape photograph does. With more DR, it just means that your deep blacks will have useful detail...rather than just noise (and better yet, in a camera with low read noise, your deep blacks won't have any nasty pattern or banding noise.)

What you print will probably only have 6 stops, but having the full 14 stops of dynamic range to work with initially is the entire point...you can maximize the potential of those final 6 stops.

Interesting, but if it is only the announcements that will be made in Feb/March, then when would you expect the release? Q3/Q4 2013?! With the first FW update in Q1/Q2 2014 to fix something they overlooked.

Why do I get the feeling Canon are getting more and more nervous about newcomers to the pro camera game such as Sony....

A Canon M camera that could keep up with the Sony RX1 would be nice. Wishful thinking perhaps but this exactly what this beyond DSLR business is all about. It's up to Canon to decide where my money will go.

c.d.embrey said:Stop living in the past. Time and technology just keep on truckin'. Moore's Law is still in effect and working well.

Quote

And it doesn't apply to either optics or light.

What do optics or light have to do with Electronic View Finders (EVF) Optics and light have something to do with the taking sensor, but absolutly nothing to with an EVF. All the EVF does is to display a signal it recieves fro the taking sender.

Quote

... In fact, I'd wager you don't even know what Moore's law does apply to since 99% of the people that quote it don't.

Moore's law says, the number of transistors on integrated circuits doubles approximately every two years. Often misquoted as every 18 months I've often seen the 18 month claim in many consumer computer magazines.

A transistor is used to amplify and switch electronic signals and electrical power. The IC is used in computers, say a Digic x. The camera transfers a signal from the taking sensor to the cameras computer, that then passes along the processed signal to the EVF. A LED or OLED screen is used to display the picture. Sounds to me like Moore's Law is aplicable to the performance of EVF, cause the more transistors in an IC, the more work it can do. Therefore in a few years, EVFs will be vastly better than they are today.